>That is exactly what ID is not. Take SETI for example. Do the SETI researchers
>base their
>belief that ID is detectable on revelation?? Obviously not. Since an atheist
>can believe
>that intelligent design is detectable in nature and detected in nature, (i.e.
>an atheist can
>be an ID proponent) ID is not dependent upon revelation. Is there a
>theological problem with
>the SETI researchers' belief that intelligent design is detectable in nature?
>If not, then
>what are your *theological* objections to the ID thesis that intelligent
>design is
>detectable in nature and detected in nature? It appears that you conflate ID
>proper with the
>use some ID proponents and Christian apologists make of it.
I think this will not progress without a definition of what you mean by ID
and detectable.
I can look around my office and see man-made and natural objects. The only
sure criterion I can find for distinguishing the two is my knowledge of
what is natural and what is man-made. This is not a very helpful
scientific criterion to apply to existing natural objects. To take the
example of SETI, there was the case of LGM. The acronym stood for little
green men. Once they were identified as rapidly spinning neutron stars,
aka pulsars, the LGM name was abandoned. (No, I do not see any pulsars as
I look around the office :). A seemingly improbable pattern, such as what
SETI seeks, is only evidence of intelligent intent as long as no
alternative explanations have been provided. I can also look at anything
in my office and see God's wisdom in making it just right for the purpose
at hand, whether He used natural processes or human skill to bring it
about. However, this is detected theologically rather than scientifically.
Thus, I can detect design theologically, or if I know full details of what
is natural or artificial.
However, the standard presentation of ID is identification of specific
natural things that are supposed to be designed differently from ordinary
natural things and criteria that supposedly differentiate the two. In this
form, I find neither the examples nor the criteria that I have seen to be
convincing. This form is also very dangerous with regard to a god of the
gaps. It does not inherently imply one, but is easily compatible with
such. The prevalence of gap views both in popular atheistic or deistic
arguments and as an error held within the church makes it necessary to
clearly attack them for ID of this sort to be useful apologetically, if any
of its claims were true.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 16:40:29 EDT